Atheists Threaten to Sue Over Sign

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

Maybe not knowingly, but:

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The most telling problem in your use of this particular definition is your failure to highlight the fundamental underpinnings that require the scientific method to investigate NATURAL phenomena. By its very definition, the supernatural or metaphysical that so prominently accompanies theism is precluded from the processes of science. I don't think that this affirms your point at all.

Originally Posted by Stillman16

I would argue that no matter how devout the person, religous or atheist, they are constantly presented with evidence that challenges their beliefs, and as such are constantly using the scientific method to re-analyze their position. The evidence may or may not change their position, and may only shift it.

I would agree with the first clause, but utterly reject the second. No, theists as a rule are not "constantly using the scientific method to re-analyze their position." Quite to the contrary, every theist that I know conforms the evidence presented to her / him to conform to her / his belief in God, and not the other way around. It is simply how theism works.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

As I mentioned, even Dawkins does depending on the definition of god. In my experience most atheists take the position that some form of god is possible, just that there isn't any evidence, so they do not believe until there is a reason to believe.

Atheism is a statement about belief. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Belief can be informed by knowledge, but it doesn't have to be.

So an atheist agnostic would say that they do not believe there are god(s), and does not know there are god(s) (or thinks the premise of god(s) is inherently unknowable, weak vs strong agnosticism).

An atheist gnostic would say they believe the god of the Bible (for example) does not exist, and they know he does not exist because of whatever reasons they feel inform their knowledge (logical contradictions, positive evidence to the contrary, etc).

A theistic agnostic would say they do believe there are god(s), but that they do not know / do not have knowledge (or cannot know/prove) that god(s) exist.

A theistic gnostic would say they believe there are god(s), and that they know / have knowledge that demonstrates that god(s) exist.

Reading this, I really wish there was a way people would begin to describe themselves on an athiest-theist/agnostic-gnostic scale instead of purely atheism-theism...

[mikey_the_redneck]

This issue the atheists have is a colossal waste of energy.....

I have a feeling I'm going to start hating atheists as bad as I hate feminists.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kirant

Reading this, I really wish there was a way people would begin to describe themselves on an athiest-theist/agnostic-gnostic scale instead of purely atheism-theism...

I have come to consider myself a "hopeful theist": I maintain a belief in God, but must concede that there is not the right kind of evidence available to conclude that there is a god. I certainly hope so, but this is the best that I can affirm.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This issue the atheists have is a colossal waste of energy.....

I have a feeling I'm going to start hating atheists as bad as I hate feminists.

I'm an atheist myself and I honestly dislike quite a few of the extreme ones...they're around as bad individual-for-individual as the extreme theists IMO.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have come to consider myself a "hopeful theist": I maintain a belief in God, but must concede that there is not the right kind of evidence available to conclude that there is a god. I certainly hope so, but this is the best that I can affirm.

We must make a 3 dimensional model with theism-gnostic-(something sciency with willingness to listen to evidence) axes!

[pylon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This issue the atheists have is a colossal waste of energy.....

I have a feeling I'm going to start hating atheists as bad as I hate feminists.

Awesome, all the heavy hitters are starting to show up now.

Mikey, find us an obscure website, that uses comic sans, that also doesn't cite any of its sources, that definitively disproves the atheist movement, and verifies unequevically the existence of only a christian god.... and that he invented guns too.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This issue is a colossal waste of energy.....

I have a feeling I'm going to start hating atheists as bad as I hate feminists.

Fixed your post. I don't know why you'd have to hate all atheists (or feminists) rather than just the annoying ones, infact; why hate anyone based on their belief-system and just hate loud, annoying people?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Shades

Of course it is.

And since you mentioned it:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...13gravity.html

That's really quite interesting. Did not have the opportunity earlier this evening to read it. Like Albert Einstein improving on Issac Newton's work, perhaps Dr. Verlinde's expands on the understanding of physics. That's what science is all about.

I'll still put stock in the Law of Gravity in the meantime.

Oh, and an Elwood H. Smith illustration. Been a fan of his for a long time.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This issue the atheists have is a colossal waste of energy.....

It's not wasted. Slowly, but surely, we're making the world a better place.

Prayer, human sacrifices, abstinence only sex-ed, covering up the rape of children, denying science... now those are more along the lines of what I would call "a colossal waste of energy".

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This issue the atheists have is a colossal waste of energy.....

I have a feeling I'm going to start hating atheists as bad as I hate feminists.

On this particular issue it probably is.

But there is probably a lot of backlash against what the religious right is turning the country into. Mixing religion with politics, changing history textbooks, increasing fundamentalism in the US.

Have atheists been striking harder and louder? Quite possibly. But look at what they're up against.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Shades

To clarify, does being an atheist entitle one to be an incompassionate d-bag?

Wait, don't you believe that all who don't follow your particular belief will burn for eternity in hell?

[WilsonFourTwo]

Oh Sky Cake......

[DownInFlames]

It's sky PIE motherf--er!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by pylon

Awesome, all the heavy hitters are starting to show up now.

Mikey, find us an obscure website, that uses comic sans, that also doesn't cite any of its sources, that definitively disproves the atheist movement, and verifies unequevically the existence of only a christian god.... and that he invented guns too.

Trollling at it's finest..

I do not practice any organized religion, so I am not caught in the trap of trying to prove/disprove the existence of a god.....nice try though..

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Daradon

On this particular issue it probably is.

But there is probably a lot of backlash against what the religious right is turning the country into. Mixing religion with politics, changing history textbooks, increasing fundamentalism in the US.

Have atheists been striking harder and louder? Quite possibly. But look at what they're up against.

What is the religious right turning the country into?

From what I can tell, American society has minimized christian presence from most public activity.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Yasa

Fixed your post. I don't know why you'd have to hate all atheists (or feminists) rather than just the annoying ones, infact; why hate anyone based on their belief-system and just hate loud, annoying people?

Good point, ...but you see I find most feminists to be loud and annoying, and an increasing amount of organized atheists are also becoming just as loud and annoying.

[You Need a Thneed]

Why does every discussion having even a little bit to do with Christianity or religion turn into a religion vs atheism discussion? It's like clockwork.

It's why I refrain from posting in most of these threads, and somewhat avoid them.

If the community has adopted the "Seven in Heaven" name for the group, I don't know why anyone would object to the name being used for a street. Seems like a fitting tribute to me.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by Thor

Wait, don't you believe that all who don't follow your particular belief will burn for eternity in hell?

Of course not. And that's where atheists, and many theists (or former pastors posting in this thread) are ignorant of the true teachings in the Bible. But that's another topic for a different thread.

[troutman]

http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html


A common misconception regarding faith—or perhaps it is an intentional attempt at disinformation and obscurantism—is made by Christian apologists, such as Dr. Richard Spencer, who wrote the following:

A statement like "There is no God, and there can't be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes" cannot be supported by the scientific method and is a statement of faith, not science (Richard Spencer, Ph.D., associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC Davis and faculty adviser to the Christian Student Union. Quoted in The Davis Enterprise, Jan. 22, 1999).

The error or deception here is to imply that anything that is not a scientific statement, i.e., one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. To use 'faith' in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have.

Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he notes, gives two distinct meanings for faith:

"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites

[Shades]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html


A common misconception regarding faith—or perhaps it is an intentional attempt at disinformation and obscurantism—is made by Christian apologists, such as Dr. Richard Spencer, who wrote the following:

A statement like "There is no God, and there can't be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes" cannot be supported by the scientific method and is a statement of faith, not science (Richard Spencer, Ph.D., associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC Davis and faculty adviser to the Christian Student Union. Quoted in The Davis Enterprise, Jan. 22, 1999).

The error or deception here is to imply that anything that is not a scientific statement, i.e., one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. To use 'faith' in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have.

Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he notes, gives two distinct meanings for faith:

"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites

Nice try at differentiating the two "faiths." Especially like your unbiased source

Belief in evolution is the epitome of having "faith" in something which has not been substantiated.

It has been decades, and extensive mutation research in animals and plants has never resulted in an original species being transformed into an entirely new one. Bear in mind, these are scientists conducting experiments under favorable artificially created conditions. But random chance just happened to do it, right?

There's your faith.

And it's laughable that evolutionists attempt to discredit those that distinguish between micro- and macro- evolution.

It's almost like saying a human baby will eventually grow into a human adult, and given enough time would turn into a donkey.

Species have real genetic boundaries, and believing they can be accidentally transgressed takes a whole lot more faith.